Tag Archives: Bible

Accurate Hermeneutics: Interpreting The Bible Correctly (Part 5)

(This is the final part of a series on correctly interpreting the Bible.  I encourage you to also read Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4.  Certainly much more can be said about accurate hermeneutics; this series is meant to be a kind of general overview of the subject.  Nevertheless, it is my prayer that this study has been beneficial to us all.  Civil and respectful comments and questions are welcome, and might even be inspiration for future articles which pertain to this and other needed subjects.  Thanks so much for taking the time to read.  Your interest is greatly appreciated.)

It is probably safe to say that most if not all casual to serious students of the Bible are aware that it is broken down into two basic parts: the Old Testament (Genesis through Malachi) and the New Testament (Matthew through Revelation.)  The Old Testament (or covenant) gives us the record of the beginning of this world, the universe, and mankind before turning its primary focus to the history and laws of the nation of Israel from the time of their patriarchs to when they were taken into Babylonian captivity.  The New Testament (or covenant) gives us the biography of Jesus Christ, the record of the earliest days of his church, and the writings of his divinely inspired apostles and prophets.  Both covenants claim to be Scripture and thus inspired by God (2 Tim. 3:16-17; cf. Rom. 15:4; 2 Pet. 3:15-16), and both contain commandments, examples, and principles by which people were and are to abide.

However, did you know that one was taken out of the way and fulfilled to make way for the other, and thus its laws and precepts are no longer applicable for Christians today?  Understanding this fact is a major foundational precept to keep in mind in order to interpret the Bible correctly, which is why I want to write about it today.

The Old Testament continually points to Jesus Christ through numerous prophecies (e.g., Deut. 18:15-19)  We know these prophecies are about Jesus because the New Testament proclaims them to fulfilled by him (e.g., Acts 3:18-24).  In fact, Jesus declared himself to be the fulfillment of the Old Testament (Matt. 5:17).  However, the Old Covenant also foretold of a time when it would be replaced by the New Covenant (Jer. 31:31-34), something which the New Testament acknowledged as having taken place (Heb. 8:7-13).  The New Covenant replaced the Old Covenant at the moment Jesus died on the cross (Heb. 9:15-17; Eph. 2:14-16; Col. 2:13-17).

Unlike the New Testament whose laws apply to everyone (Matt. 28:18; Acts 17:31; John 12:48), the Old Testament declared itself to be written for and applicable solely to the nation of Israel (Deut. 5:1-3; Jer. 31:32).  It was done in order to serve as a “guardian”to Israel until Christ came (Gal. 3:24).  However, now that Christ and the faith which he brought has come, the Old Covenant’s laws are no longer applicable (Gal. 3:25) and Jewish Christians are now said to be free from it in the same way that a woman is no longer married to her spouse upon his death (Rom. 7:1-6).  Those Christians who would attempt to still obey some of the commandments of the Old Covenant (such as circumcision – Gen. 17:10-14) were said to be obliged to obey all of its commandments (Gal. 5:3).  More importantly, they were said to have fallen from grace (Gal. 5:4).

This is not to say that the Old Testament has no value to the Christian and should not be studied by the Christian.  The New Testament promotes the value of the Old Testament by telling Christians that it instructs, encourages, and provides hope for us (Rom. 15:4).  Some might ask how it can instruct us when we do not have to obey the commandments found within it.  It instructs us, as well as encourages us and gives us hope, by teaching us about God.  For example, it tells us about the awesome power of God as shown through his creation (Ps. 19:1).  When we read that the Lord is our shepherd who protects us when we’re in the dark valley of death (Ps. 23), we are encouraged and comforted.  When we read of the interactions God had with disobedient Israel in the Old Testament, it serves as an admonishing example for us (1 Cor. 10:1-11) by teaching us how God does not tolerate sin.  In these and many other ways, it along with the New Testament is “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work”(2 Tim. 3:16-17).

However, proper hermeneutics require that we recognize that the laws given to Israel in the Old Covenant which regulated their theology, their worship, their eating habits, their holy days, etc., do not apply to Christians today unless we read of those same regulations given to us in the New Covenant.  For example, all ten of the commandments God gave to Moses at Mount Sinai are also commandments found in the New Testament except the one concerning the Sabbath Day.  In like manner, the commandment to love our neighbors the same way in which we love ourselves is found in both testaments (Lev. 19:18; Rom. 13:9).  However, while we read of Israelites commanded to worship God through animal sacrifices and instruments of music in the Old Testament (Lev. 1; 2 Chr. 29:25-30), we do not read of Christians being commanded to worship God in the same ways in the New Testament.  Rather, Christians are told that Christ is their sacrifice (Heb. 9:26) and that they are to sing praises to God while “plucking the instrument” (the literal definition of the Greek word translated “making melody”) of their heart (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16).

This brings us to the final major difference between the Old and New Testaments which I’d like to cover in this article.  The New Law calls the Old Law “a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form”(Heb. 10:1), and the food regulations and holy days of the Old Covenant “a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ”(Col. 2:16-17).  If you were to see my shadow, you would be able to tell a few things about me…but not everything, not until you actually saw me in the flesh.  In like manner, the people of the Old Testament in many ways were “shadows”or “types”of people in the New Testament (e.g., Adam and Jesus – Rom. 5:14; 1 Cor. 15:45-49).  The physical emblems, places, and acts of worship in the Old Covenant were “symbolic”of the spiritual worship commanded “in the present age”to the church living under the New Covenant (Heb. 9:1-10; cf. John 4:20-24).  The Old Testament’s worship focused on the physical, while the New Testament worship focuses on the spiritual.  When we understand that, it helps us to more accurately interpret the Bible when it comes to the type of worship God wants of Christians in the church today.

“I will meditate on your precepts and fix my eyes on your ways.” (Ps. 119:15)

Interpreting the Bible correctly is a goal which requires constant study (Ps. 1:2; 1 Tim. 4:13, 15-16).  One will not come to a proper understanding and application of accurate hermeneutics overnight; in fact, continual study and learning will always be required of us if for no other reason than we will forget some things that we have learned (2 Pet. 3:1-2).  These articles I’ve written this week only provide a generalized overview; much more would need to be written in order to “get into the meat” of the matter.  However, it is my hope that what has been written this week can serve as a good starting point for all of us in our efforts to obey God’s command to no longer be spiritual children, “tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes”(Eph. 4:14).  May we all strive to get a good diet of the milk of God’s Word (1 Pet. 2:2) so that we can grow to get into the meat (Heb. 5:12-14) May we work hard to “leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity”(Heb. 6:1-2).  The study and thought required to write these articles helps me to accomplish that, and it is my hope and prayer that these writings help you to reach that goal also.  Thanks for reading…

Accurate Hermeneutics: Interpreting The Bible Correctly (Part 4)

(This is the fourth part of a series on how to interpret the Bible correctly.  Part 1 can be found here, Part 2 can be found here, and Part 3 can be found here.)  

Jesus was asked, “By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this authority?” (Matt. 21:23), a legitimate question even if it was asked with illegitimate motives.  It’s a legitimate question because God himself tells us to have authority from Christ in everything we do and say (Col. 3:17).  Thus, the concept of biblical authority is very important to having a proper hermeneutic of Scripture.  Authority is a major foundational precept of Christianity, for without it we have no basis for anything we believe, teach, or practice in our individual lives and in the church.

Think about it.  Look at prayer, for instance.  Prayer is a basic fundamental trait of Christianity.  We all know that Christians pray…but how do we know who to pray to, or what to pray for, or even to pray in the first place?  When all is said and done, we know to pray (Col. 4:2) to God the Father (Matt. 6:9) about numerous topics (Matt. 6:9-13; 1 Tim. 2:1-2; etc.)…because God’s Word tells us to do so.  If it wasn’t for the Holy Spirit-inspired Scriptures (2 Pet. 1:19-21), we wouldn’t know how to pray or even to pray in the first place (Rom. 8:26).  Thus, we get our authority to pray from God’s Word.

In fact, every divinely pleasing thing we do as Christians is done by authority that comes from God’s Word (2 Tim. 3:16-17).  Did you notice how Paul said that Scripture equips us for “EVERY good work”?  That means that if there is a work out there which we don’t need Scripture to give us authority to do in some way, then it is not a good work…not as far as God is concerned.  Sure, wemight think it to be a good work…but God’s thoughts are not our thoughts (Is. 55:8-9; Prov. 14:12).   So again the need for biblical authority is apparent…but how do we get that authority?  A study of the Bible reveals that God’s Word gives authority in three basic ways.

The first would be through a command, a direct statement of something can or cannot be done (e.g., John 13:34; Acts 2:38; Eph. 5:18; 1 Thess. 4:3).  Sometimes biblical commands are general in nature, not limited in scope, area, or application.  For example, the command to “go” (Matt. 28:19) is general in nature and would authorize all methods of transportation in our efforts to evangelize, since God did not specify just HOW we are to “go.”  On the other hand, sometimes biblical commands are specific in nature, like when God specified gopher wood as the type of wood Noah was to use while building the ark (Gen. 6:14).  Noah would have disobeyed God by using pine wood, because God had specified gopher wood.

Pine wood? Not allowed. Hammers, saws, and ladders? Allowed.

In like manner, a specific command may itself have a degree of general authority which would open up the use of aids not specifically mentioned in the command but which nonetheless are suitable for carrying out that which is authorized.  For example, peruse the instructions God gave to Noah about the construction of the ark, and you will see more examples of how specific God was in his requirements (Gen. 6:14-16).  However, you will find no mention of God telling Noah to use tools such as hammers, nails, saws, etc.  Yet, we know that the ark was not built miraculously in that it took over a century to build (Gen. 6:3); thus, Noah must have used construction tools to build it, tools which God did not mention in his instructions.  So did Noah go beyond what God had authorized?  Not necessarily, for when all was said and done the Bible says twice that Noah “did all that God commanded him” (Gen. 6:22; 7:5).

The second way God’s Word gives authority is through approved examples.  The divinely inspired apostle Paul taught not only through command, but also by example (Phil. 4:9).  In fact, he encouraged others to imitate him and to follow his apostolic example (1 Cor. 4:16-17; 11:1), something which the early church did with all the apostles (Acts 2:42; Phil. 3:17; 2 Thess. 3:9) and with good reason, considering that the apostles were divinely inspired (Eph. 3:3-5).  So when we have an example in Scripture that meets with apostolic approval, we know there is authority for the practice.  For example, we meet on the first day of the week to partake of communion because of the example set by the early church with the apostles’ approval (Acts 20:7; cf. 1 Cor. 10:16-17).

The third way God’s Word gives authority is through necessary implications.  These are neither explicitly stated nor specifically exemplified, but rather are necessarily implied by the clear meaning of the language the inspired writers are using, so much so that one could only logically draw a particular conclusion.  Jesus made a necessary implication in his teaching of the existence of the resurrection of the dead to the unbelieving Sadducees (Matt. 22:31).  He quoted what God said to Moses at Mount Horeb (Ex. 3:6) about currently being the God of Jewish patriarchs who at the time were centuries in their grave (“I AM the God of Abraham…Isaac, and…Jacob”) to necessarily imply that God is not “God of the dead, but of the living,”i.e., that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob still existed after their deaths.

For God so loved the world…

We do the same thing, probably without realizing it.  For example, we cite John 3:16 as biblical proof that God gave his Son because he loves all of humanity…but the verse doesn’t actually say that.  It actually says, “For God so loved THE WORLD that he gave his only Son…”  Yet, we necessarily infer that “the world” is referring to the entire human population rather than the physical planet because of what is specifically stated in other passages (cf. 1 Tim. 2:4).  In like manner, students of the New Testament know that there is no specific commandment which states, “Thou shalt not punch thy wife in the face.”  However, none of us would state that spousal abuse is therefore permitted in the New Testament…why?  Because of the necessary implications we make from certain passages (Matt. 7:12; Eph. 5:28-29).

These principles on how to establish biblical authority may seem commonplace, dull, unimaginative, or matter-of-fact, but they have proven to be very useful in correctly applying God’s Word to our lives in a consistent and logical manner.  It is my hope that you may find them useful in your quest to interpret God’s Word correctly.

(Lord willing, I’ll write an article in a few hours which will conclude this series by studying the differences between the Old and New Testaments.  Hope you check in  later today for that.  Thanks for reading, and please know that all comments and questions are welcome, provided they are given in a Christian manner.)

Accurate Hermeneutics: Interpreting The Bible Correctly (Part 1)

Is it possible to correctly interpret God’s Word?

I received an excellent question in the comments for last week’s article, Can We Understand the Bible Alike?  The commenter asked, “What is your solution to properly interpreting the Bible? Do you take a literal interpretation, or a more intricate one, etc.?”  This is a very important inquiry, because how one interprets the Bible – more specifically, whether one does so correctly – determines whether one is going to actually obey the commands and principles laid out in the Bible.  That, in turn, has a direct bearing on whether one will be saved (Matt. 7:21-23; Heb. 5:9).  Therefore, if God permits me I would like to take the next few posts on my blog to show both from scripture and from logic how to correctly interpret the Bible.

To begin with, it must be asked whether it is actually possible to correctly interpret the Bible.  After all, some believe that truth is relative rather than absolute.  This notion is easily proven to be very much mistaken when one thinks about it with an open and honest mind (cf. Luke 8:15).  To the person who confidently asserts, “There is no absolute truth,” responding with the simple inquiry, “Are you absolutely sure about that?” shows the inconsistency and error of such a proposition.  Nevertheless, many still believe this foolish notion.  A popular rock band from my youth wrote a song which opined, “This is not a black and white world/To be alive, I say that the colors must swirl/And I believe that maybe today/We will all get to appreciate/The beauty of gray.”  This post-modernistic idea – the beauty of gray, there are no black and whites, there is no absolute truth – is very popular in our society, and for good reason.  After all, if there is no such thing as absolute truth then there is no such thing as an absolute standard of what is right and what is wrong.  (If not, why not?)  Therefore, who are you to tell me that I am wrong for doing whatever it is I want to do?

“I set your house on fire, but that’s okay…because I think it is.”

Hypothetically, I could commit adultery with your spouse, murder your child, steal your money, and burn down your house, and you probably would have a problem with that.  Fine, that’s YOUR definition of truth.  MY definition of truth is that it’s okay for me to do those things.  Since truth is relative, that means we’re both right.  And since I am right, I will continue to commit adultery with your spouse, murder your children, steal your money, and harm your property…and who are you to tell me I’m wrong to do so?  Such a mindset is not only ludicrous on its face but also extremely dangerous, because following this line of thought to its logical end would result in chaos (cf. Judg. 21:25).

Additionally, having this post-modernistic mindset would make it impossible for one to correctly interpret the Bible, because to a post-modernistic mind every word in the Bible would be subjective, open to multiple interpretations of which all would be valid.  For example, you believe that John 3:16 teaches that God gave his Son because he loved the world?  Fine, that’s YOUR interpretation.  MY interpretation of John 3:16 is that God gave his Son because he did NOT love the world.  Since truth is relative, we’re both right and who are you to tell me that I’m wrong?  Again, a simple reading of the passage under consideration shows very clearly…to the person who already knows about and accepts the existence of absolute truth…that the above, post-modernistic way of thinking is absurd on its face.  The passage very clearly states, “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son…”  Believe that statement to be absolutely true, and you will clearly see the error of anyone who would interpret it in any other way.

Therefore, the existence of the post-modernistic mindset does not mean that it is impossible for anyone to correctly interpret the Bible.  On the contrary, those who recognize the existence of absolute truth in this world will find it easier to correctly interpret God’s Word, because God’s Word IS truth (John 17:17).  When one who already knows and accepts the fact that absolute truth exists and then comes to know and accept the fact that God’s Word is truth, then one has achieved the first step towards correctly interpreting the Bible.

(Check back tomorrow, Lord willing, for Part 2 of this article.)